Re: Did you "Choose to Believe," or "Choose not to believe"?

On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:04:32 -0700 (PDT), cazayoux@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>On May 13, 12:30 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
>> something to be evidenced.
>>
>> I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
>> am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
>> it did not point towards a god)
>
>Hello !
>
>  I'm new to the area.
>  The statement above says a lot.
>  You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.

Hardly a choice.

>  You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
>proof of the existence of god.

Learn to read for comprehension.

>  This thinking I can understand.
>  How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
>a lack of evidence of there not being a god?

Learn to read for comprehension.

>  It seems that the athiesm you practice involves faith.  You believe
>even though there is no evidence for the belief.

What is it with you morons?

Is it really so difficult to understand the world beyond your
religion?

>  I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
>god, because there is no evidence either way'.

Why do you imagine anybody outside your religion has anything to be
agnostic about?

>  Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
>itself.

Because it is simply not being any kind of theist.

What you believe, is merely somebody else's religious belief.

We are totally outside your religion, as well as all the others.

So we cannot be described as though your inside-the-religion
presumptions had any automatic validity outside it.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Do YOU "have faith that Zeus doesn't exist" or is it simply a
character in somebody else's mythology?

Please think before answering, try to be honest and don't back
yourself into a corner.

>michel